1st Session

No. 985

AMEND THE ACT ENTITLED "AN ACT FOR THE CONTROL OF FLOODS ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER"

MAY 23, 1935.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. WILSON of Louisiana, from the Committee on Flood Control, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 7349]

The Committee on Flood Control, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7349) to amend the act entitled "An act for the control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and for other purposes", approved May 15, 1928, as amended, having considered same, report it to the House with the following amendments, with the recommendation that it do pass as amended.

On page 2, line 2, after the word "agencies", insert "or landowners"; and on page 2, at the end of line 12, insert:

: And provided further, That payments or reimbursements may be made as soon as the flowage rights provided for in this Act have been acquired in conformity with local customs or legal procedure in such matters and to the satisfaction of the Chief of Engineers:

The new matter proposed in the above-mentioned amendments will make this part of the bill read as follows:

to reimburse the States or legally constituted and empowered local agencies or landowners for the cost of flowage rights over all lands, including compensation for damages to improvements thereon at the time of the taking; that have been or may be acquired and paid for by States or such agencies in connection with the flood-control project herein adopted; embracing those areas which were protected by the main Mississippi River levees on May 15, 1928, but which have since been left or may hereafter be left, on the river side of the main river controlling levee lines constructed on new locations under the flood-control plan: Provided, That after careful investigation the prices are found to be reasonable: And provided further, That payments or reimbursements may be made as soon as the flowage rights provided for in this act have been acquired in conformity with local customs or legal procedure in such matters and to the satisfaction of the Chief of Engineers: This proposed amendment to the Flood Control Act of 1928 provides compensation by the United States for lands, farms, homes, and property taken by the Federal Government for the passage of the

flood waters in the main channel of the Mississippi River within the adopted project from Cape Giradeau, Mo., to the Gulf of Mexico.

When the Congress approved and adopted this project as a national obligation and responsibility, section 2 of the Act No. 391, Seventieth Congress, set forth the reasons therefor as follows:

SEC. 2. That it is hereby declared to be the sense of Congress that the principle of local contribution toward the cost of flood-control work, which has been incorporated in all previous national legislation on the subject, is sound, as recognizing the special interest of the local population in its own protection, and as a means of preventing inordinate requests for unjustified items of work having no material national interest. As a full compliance with this principle in view of the great expenditure estimated at approximately $292,000,000, heretofore made by the local interests in the alluvial valley of the Mississippi River for protection against the floods of that river; in view of the extent of national concern in the control of these floods in the interests of national prosperity, the flow of interstate commerce, and the movement of the United States mails; and, in view of the gigantic scale of the project, involving flood waters of a volume and flowing from a drainage area largely outside the States most affected, and far exceeding those of any other river in the United States, no local contribution to the project herein adopted is required.

Exceptions thereto are stated in section 3 of the same act, Public, No. 391, Seventieth Congress, as follows, and which it is the purpose of this bill to clarify and remove doubts and controversies as to the intent of the Congress.

SEC. 3. Except when authorized by the Secretary of War upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, no money appropriated under authority of this Act shall be expended on the construction of any item of the project until the States or levee districts have given assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will (a) maintain all flood-control works after their completion, except controlling and regulating spillway structures, including special relief levees; maintenance includes normally such matters as cutting grass, removal of weeds, local drainage, and minor repairs of main river levees; (b) agree to accept land turned over to them under the provisions of section 4; (c) provide without cost to the United States, all rights-of-way for levee foundations and levees on the main stem of the Mississippi River between Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and the Head of Passes.

It is also the purpose of this bill to provide just and fair relief to citizens of many States within and without the Mississippi Valley whose lands were protected when the act was passed but which have been sacrificed for flood-control purposes in the execution of the plans approved by the Cong ess.

The basic exception in section 3 is that the States and levee districts shall "(c) provide without cost to the United States, all rights-ofway for levee foundations and levees on the main stem of the Mississippi River between Cape Girardeau, Mo., and the Head of Passes." This exception has been fully complied with, in addition to the $292,000,000 expended by local interests before the passage of the act of 1928. The same local interests, in cooperation with the Federal Government, have complied with this exception, contributing $41,403,608.66, as shown by the records of the Mississippi River Commission and the Chief of Army Engineers.

This exception limited the obligation of the local interests to acquiring rights-of-way for levees and levee foundations. Therefore, as a matter of reasonable and legal interpretation, other obligations imposed by the changes and relocations of levee lines cannot be imposed upon the local interests but is an obligation of the United States Government.

engineering it was considered necessary to change the location. The area was immediately south of the corporate limits of the city, and as usual in such instances, the industrial section abutted the municipal limits, rendering necessary the acquisition of the rights-of-way through such developed area at an unusual expense, from the standpoint of actual foundation values and the cost of moving existing structures and destruction of so much of the limited space necessary to the proper operation of the industries as to destroy convenient and accessible operations thereon. The local agency was financially unable to procure the rights-of-way, which in turn resulted in the abandonment of the plan based on proper engineering theory, and in order to avoid a weak link in the levee system it became necessary for the engineers to increase the size of the existing levee, the site of which was condemned by their expert knowledge.

LOUISIANA

A striking example and an impressive instance of the effect of proposed set-backs and changes in levee lines may be found in northeast Louisiana, in the territory comprising the Fifth Louisiana Levee District.

At Wilson Point, or Bunches Bend, in East Carroll Parish, the set-back and relocation of the levee line cuts across the bend and places 9,600 acres of highly improved and cultivated land between the newly located levee and the main river channel. The distance around the point, the location of the old levee, is 151⁄2 miles; the distance across the point, the location of the new levee, is 3.7 miles. This represents a saving to the Government of $906,000. In addition to saving $906,000 in actual cost of construction, the new levee is on high ground and permanent location and therefore avoids the cost of maintaining by bank revetments or replacements in event of caving. The amount saved would, in this particular instance, be several times the sum necessary to compensate the landowners whose lands, for all intents and purposes, are made a portion of the channel of the Mississippi River. This property has been protected from floods since 1840. In flood time in the future it will be used, for all intents and purposes, as part of the main channel of the river to carry excessive flood waters.

At Australia Point the distance around the bend is 9.6 miles, the location of the old levee; the distance across the point is 1.4 miles, the location of the new levee. This represents a saving to the Government of $513,000.

At Duckport, Madison Parish, the proposed change places between the new levee and the Mississippi River about 12,000 acres. At Somerset, in Tensas Parish, a set-back and relocation of the levee moves the line back from 4 to 6 miles and throws outside the new levee, or between the new levee and the Mississippi River, 20,000 acres. The major portion of these lands are highly improved property in cultivation. The relocation of levees across these points represent in each instance a material saving to the Government and a distinct loss in value and protection to the property owner.

MISSISSIPPI

Under the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928, the local interests were required to furnish the rights-of-way for levees along the Mississippi River.

The Chief of Engineers estimated that the total costs of rights-ofway for levees to the local levee boards and to the local agencies would be approximately $4,000,000. At the time of the adoption of the project practically all rights-of-way for levees had been acquired and paid for by the local interests. It was thought that additional rightsof-way for the enlargement of the levees would be required. It was not contemplated that the levees would be set back as far as they have been located or that the levee line would be shortened across bends. In the execution of the project many set-backs have been made and many relocations have been constructed.

The purpose of the bill is to pay the reasonable value of the flowage rights, including compensation for damages to improvements, on lands that were protected by the main Mississippi levees on May 15, 1928, but which have been left out or may be left out on the river side of the main river controlling levees constructed on new locations under the adopted project.

The purpose of the act is to effectuate the intent of Congress with respect to local contribution. The Flood Control Act provides that the control of the floods in the lower Mississippi River is a national problem. The local interests are required to furnish rights-of-way and to maintain the levees. Under the act, $80,000,000 was to be used for revetment and in aid of navigation.

In the execution of the project it has been found more economical to construct levees across points in the bends than to revet the caving banks. The act contemplated levees with a life of 20 years. As executed, the project has provided for levees with a life of 30 years. The result is that the local interests have been required to contribute a great deal more to provide rights-of-way than was contemplated by the act. At the same time, the Government has saved a great deal by set-backs and by cut-offs, inasmuch as a great deal less revetment has been constructed than was contemplated.

In Mississippi there are approximately 300 miles of levees. There are two levee districts.

MISSISSIPPI LEVEE BOARD

The Chief of Engineers estimated that the costs of rights-of-way in the Mississippi Levee District would be $1,099,624. Because of setbacks and as disclosed by the hearings, the costs to date aggregate approximately $1,500,000. The costs in this district are 50 percent more than the estimate of the Chief of Engineers.

YAZOO-MISSISSIPPI DELTA LEVEE DISTRICT

As disclosed by page 4805 of the hearings, 1927-28, Gen. Edgar Jadwin, Chief of Engineers, estimated that the total cost of the rightsof-way for this district would be $68,796. As disclosed by the hearings on the bill, this district has expended to date $852,152.58. This district has expended, therefore, more than 10 times the amount estimated by the Chief of Engineers that would be required by way of local contribution.